AN INJUSTICE TO PRESIDENT ESTRADA
AND HIS LAWYER
Privilege Speech of Sen. Alfredo S. Lim
January 23, 2006
Mr.
President,
esteemed
colleagues,
distinguished
guests, ladies and gentlemen, at sa minamahal kong mga
kababayan, I rise on a question of personal privilege.
Five (5) years had passed since President Joseph
Estrada was driven away from Malacañang, as an offshoot of
what was known as the EDSA II Revolution. We saw the
ascendancy and swearing into office as Acting President of
Gloria M. Arroyo, based on her own letter to Supreme Court
Chief Justice Hilario Davide, Jr. declaring the “permanent
incapacity” of President Estrada, despite the fact that he still
governed us and was in Malacañang Palace as late as 4:00
p.m. that day.
Kaya’t
kung
inyong
napansin,
ginunita
ng
sambayanang Pilipino noong nakaraang Biyernes, Enero 20,
ang
anibersaryo
ng
EDSA
2
na
para
bagang
isang
karaniwang araw lang na nagdaan, ‘di tulad ng nangyayari
‘pag dumadating ang EDSA I.
That
is
so,
Mr.
President
because,
sa
halip
na
nagdiwang ang sambayanan, sila ay nagluksa sa naturang
araw sapagkat ito ang araw ng pagyurak, sa Saligang Batas
at sa ating kalayaan.
Mr. President, in what may be considered as a unique
demonstration of selflessness and statesmanship, a rare
sacrifice which no popular public official or leader of even
positional advantage in recent history could have done,
President Estrada offered no physical resistance against the
hungry forces, that were grabbing power from him. Even if
Pres. Estrada had not committed any crime; even if Pres.
Estrada’s only fault was in having been too honest to himself,
loved his country much and believed in the fairness and
justness of our judicial system, he assented to bring his
battle to courts and face his accusers, as he knew justice
would in the end triumph and the evil power- grabbers
would fail.
Ating matatandaan na tanghaling tapat ng Enero 20,
2001 nang pinanumpa, ni Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr. si
Vice- President Gloria Macapagal- Arroyo bilang “acting
president”, at ang nagging batayan nito ay ang liham ni Mrs.
2
Arroyo sa Korte Suprema, na idinideklara ang “permanent
incapacity” ni Pangulong Joseph Ejercito Estrada.
Questionable
at
illegal
na
pasumpaing
“acting
president” si Vice- Pres. Arroyo batay sa alegasyon nito na
“permanent incapacity” ni Pangulong Estrada, sapagka’t
ayon sa Konstitusyon ang pangulo mismo o ang mayorya ng
kanyang
gabinete,
ang
tanging
may
karapatan
na
magdeklara ng “permanent incapacity” ng pangulo at ang
naturang deklarasyon ay dapat na suriin at pagtibayin ng
Kongreso. Ito ay hindi nasunod.
Tila may naganap na baluktot na panlilinlang at
pagsasabwatan, sapagka’t noong gabi ng Enero 19, 2001 ay
nakipagkita ang mga emisaryo ni then Vice- Pres. Arroyo sa
mga kinatawan ni Pangulong Estrada at testigo nito ang
ating kasamang si Senador Edgardo Angara, na inalok nilang
patakasin sa ibang bansa si Pangulong Estrada kapalit ng
pagpirma niya ng “letter of resignation”, na mahigpit
namang tinanggihan ni Pangulong Estrada.
Mr. President, hinihingi ng pagkakataon ang paglilinaw
ng Korte Suprema kung bakit at kung paano nito ginawang
3
legal, ang panunumpa ni Pres. Arroyo noong Enero 20, 2001,
sa pamamagitan ng deklarasyon noong Marso 2001 na si
Pangulong
Estrada,
ay
nagsagawa
ng
“constructive
resignation”.
Pinasumpa ni Chief Justice Davide si Mrs. Arroyo na
“acting president” noong Enero 20, 2001 na ang batayan ay
ang liham ni then Vice- Pres. Arroyo, na “permanent
incapacity” ni Pangulong Estrada, ngunit matapos ang
tatlong buwan ay pinalitan ito ng Korte Suprema ng
“constructive resignation”.
Paano pinasumpa ni Chief Justice Davide na “acting
president” noong tanghali ng Enero 20, 2001 si Pres. Arroyo,
gayong noong naturang oras ay hindi naman bakante ang
Tanggapan ng Pangulo. Nang naturang oras ay buhay na
buhay at hindi patay si Pangulong Estrada; hindi ito
permanently incapacitated, at hindi rin ito nagre-resign!
Bakit pinasumpa ni Chief Justice Davide na “acting
president” si Vice- Pres. Arroyo, gayung alam niya bilang
punong mahistrado ng Senate Impeachment Court na si
Pangulong Estrada ay hindi naman na-impeach, dahil hindi
4
natapos and Senate Impeachment Proceedings bunga ng
pag- walkout ng mga congressmen prosecutors, matapos na
mabigo silang mapabuksan ang kontrobersyal na second
envelope na may kinalaman sa Jose Velarde account?
Mr. President, maitanong ko nga at kung maari ay
liwanagin ninyo sa kapulungang ito, - opisyal bang tinapos
ng Senado ang impeachment case kay Pangulong Estrada?
Kung hind, ano ang status nito, maituturing bang buhay pa
ito hanggang ngayon?
Mr. President, maidagdag ko ang tanong na ito: bakit
pinayagan ng Senado na mapabilang ang kontrobersyal na
Jose Velarde account, sa mga sakdal na tinalakay ng Senate
impeachment court, gayung hindi naman ito kasama sa
pinagtibay na “impeachment charge sheet” ng House of
Representative? Hindi ba ito ay isang paglabag din sa
Konstitusyon?
Bilang pagbabalik tanaw, matapos ang dalawang araw
nang lisanin ni Pangulong Estrada ang Malakanyang, muli
itong inalok ng mga emisaryo ni Pres. Arroyo na mangibang
bansa, sa pamamagitan ng pagdaraan sa “back door” o sa
5
Mindanao at nang ito ay muling tumanggi, ay pinagbantaan
nilang ipasasakdal ng mga kasong criminal.
Mr. President, I do not wish to dwell lengthily on the
events that had transpired thereafter, because I feel
disappointed
and
disenchanted
with
the
unpalatable
developments which made Pres. Estrada’s struggle to victory,
thorny and continuously difficult, a path which Christ chose
to redeem mankind. Recounting them now pains me. So, I
only pray for his eventual vindication.
Mr. President, at the height of his crusade for judicial
vindication, Pres. Estrada was assisted by one Atty. Allan
Paguia, an idealist lawyer, academician and barrister who
fought for principles, even if it would cost him fortune and
perdition.
Verily, his idealism brought him personal disaster,
damaged
his
professional
life
and
career,
and
more
importantly, was impoverishing him.
Permit me to quote an excerpt in the case of Estrada vs.
Sandiganbayan, (416 SCRA 465 [2003]), decided by the
6
Supreme Court, where Atty. Allan Paguia demonstrated his
daring declaration defending Pres. Estrada as he challenged
the July 2, 2003 order of the Sangdiganbayan, that denied
his motion to dismiss by characterizing it as a patent
mockery of justice and due process. Thus, Atty. Paguia was
quoted as having said:
The act of the public officer, if LAWFUL, is
the act of the public office. But the act of the
public officer, if UNLAWFUL, is not the act of
the public office. Consequently, the act of the
justices, if LAWFUL, is the act of the Supreme
Court. But the act of the justices, if
UNLAWFUL, is not the act of the Supreme
Court. It is submitted that the Decision is
ESTRADA vs. ARROYO being patently
unlawful in view of Rule 5.10 of the CODE OF
JUDICIAL CONDUCT, is not the act of the
Supreme Court but is merely the wrong or
trespass of those individual Justices who
falsely spoke and acted in the name of the
Supreme Court. (Urbano vs. Chaves, 183
SCRA [347]). Furthermore, it would seem
absurd to allow the justice to use the name
of the Supreme Court as a shield for their
UNLAWFUL act. At p. 468
Of course, Atty. Paguia vented his personal conviction
and espousal of his client’s cause, even in media in attacking
the Supreme Court. As quoted in Estrada, supra, Atty.
Paguia wrote in the September 7, 2003 issue of the Daily
Tribune:
What is the legal effect of that violation
of President Estrada’s right to due process of
7
law? It renders the decision in Estrada vs.
Arroyo unconstitutional and void. The
rudiments of fair play were not observed.
There was no fair play since it appears that
when President Estrada filed his petition,
Chief Justice Davide and his fellow justices
had already committed to the other partyGMA- with a judgment already made and
waiting to be formalized after the litigants
had authorized the proclamation of GMA as
president, can they be expected to
voluntarily admit the unconstitutionality of
their own act? At p. 471
For such acts, Atty. Paguia was asked by the Supreme
Court to show cause why he should not be sanctioned for
conduct unbecoming a lawyer and an officer of the Court.
But in defending himself, he reiterated his claim of political
partisanship against the members of the Court citing Canon
5.10 of the Code of Judicial Conduct which states:
Rule 5.10. A judge is entitled to
entertain
personal
views
on
political
questions. But to avoid suspicion of political
partisanship, a judge shall not make political
speeches, contribute to party funds, publicly
endorse candidates for political office or
participate in other partisan political activities.
The Supreme Court in Estrada, supra, rejected his
argument and justified its involvement in the swearing in of
Gloria M. Arroyo and professed non- partisanship in politics
in this wise:
It should be clear that the phrase “partisan
political activities”, in its statutory context, relates
8
to acts designated to cause the success or the
defeat of a particular candidate or candidates who
have filed certificates of candidacy to a public
office in an election. The taking of an oath of office
by any incoming President of the Republic before
the Chief of Justice of the Philippines is a
traditional official function of the Highest
Magistrate.
The assailed presence of other
justices of the Court at such an event could be no
different from their appearance in such other
official functions as attending the Annual State of
Nation Address by the President of the Philippines
before the Legislative Department. At p. 470.
Accordingly, by the High Court’s decision promulgated
November 25, 2003, Atty. Paguia was indefinitely suspended
from the practice of law for conduct unbecoming a lawyer
and an officer of the court. Because of that decision, he was
barred from appearing in courts, handling cases, he was also
barred from teaching law in any school, his remaining source
of income.
Sad to say, in any serious indiscretion or grave abuse
thereof on the part of the highest court of the land, relief is
a stranger in the fundamental laws… nowhere in our
Constitution… thus, when the violation of the rights of a
private individual is attributed to the highest magistrate…
the victim finds no recourse but to yield to his fate… just like
what happened to Atty. Allan Paguia… a prestigious Law
Professor at the Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila and
9
Ateneo de Manila University… his alma mater wherein he
founded the Ateneo Law Bulletin and likewise, the AFP
Lawyer’s Digest… Being listed in the ASEAN Directory of
Legal Scholars… he was already enjoying his financially
satiating law practice as a consummate Trial Lawyer since
1984… until he fearlessly advocated truth… equity and
justice to prevail in the controversial case of President
Joseph Ejercito Estrada at the Sandiganbayan, when he took
up the cudgels of appearing as the new counsel de parte for
him… on May 19, 2003. it was a risky but valiant mission…
commenced through his Omnibus Motion for the declaration
of the appointment of his counsels de oficio as functus officio
and that all the three (3) criminal cases against his clientPresident be dismissed… He followed it with another June 9,
2003- motion whereby he entreated, among others, for the
accused-President Estrada “to be given an opportunity to
prove the truth, based on the statements contained in
Justice
Artemio
Judiciary”,
in
Panganiban’s
relation
to
his
book,
“Reforming
imputed
the
“pre-judgment
committed by the Supreme Court Justice” in its earlier
adjudicated cases against President Joseph Estrada… which
decision was assailed as “a patent mockery of justice and
10
due process”, entitled “Estrada vs Arroyo” (353 SCRA 452
and 356 SCRA 108).
Mr. President, with due respect to the Supreme Court, I
do not find anything censurable with what Atty. Paguia
uttered, wrote and displayed in defending Pres. Estrada as
to warrant, the imposition of an indefinite suspension in law
practice.
Like Mr. Paguia, many of our people still have that
personal conviction that by prematurely swearing in VicePres. Gloria Arroyo as Acting President, based on the
unverified
claim
that
Pres.
Estrada
was
permanently
incapacitated, the Supreme Court involved itself in the
political tribulation then confronting the nation.
Mr.
President,
majority
of
legal
experts
do
not
subscribe to the argument, that the members of the
Supreme Court attended the swearing to office by the Chief
Justice in deference to the tradition, that the Supreme Court
members may be present in events such as the oath taking
of a president.
11
Atty. Paguia believe they were there to lend political
support and give semblance of legality, into the swift
assumption by GMA to the presidency, nothing more,
nothing less.
Was that not a simple case of politicking on the part of
the Supreme Court because knowing that the contending
political forces and military followers of the protagonists
were at each other’s neck to gain political control of the
country, the Justices took sides with one of them?
Therefore, not having insulated itself from politics, the
Supreme Court should have ignored the attacks of Atty.
Paguia no matter how vitriolic they were, but should have
learned the bitter lesson that in any political uprising
sanctioned under the Constitution, it must shy away from it
and remain neutral and impartial; otherwise, if the members
prefer to take part, they should not begrudge any form of
criticism or censure from the people; nor capitalize on them
by taking sanctions especially on lawyers, on whom they
have absolute control but must be prepared, to suffer the
consequences of their acts.
12
The tragedy of it all is that, tinanggalan na nila ng
abogado si Pres. Estrada, they likewise deprived Pres.
Estrada of his constitutional right to due process because,
until now, he is detained in jail when as incumbent President
in
2001,
he
was
immune
from
arrest
and
prosecution since he was never impeached.
criminal
Indeed, he
certainly cannot be blamed for the unceremonious abruption
of the impeachment proceedings which, in all probability,
could have ended in his eventual acquittal.
Yet, from that
fateful
most
day,
Pres.
Estrada
had
suffered
of
the
debilitating consequences of a failed system, otherwise
hallowed as the epitome of justice which spares no one –
man or woman, rich or poor, powerful or not. Despite being
a lawful President convincingly elected by the millions, he
was unlawfully stripped of his office by a few power-hungry
elite; despite his constitutionally guaranteed right to be free
from arrest, he was unconstutionally detained; and now,
despite every single accused’s right to enjoy his liberty even
during the pendency of the criminal charge against him, he
was refused his right to bail.
Why? There are those who say that to allow a man as
powerful as Estrada to be out of bail, would be to unjustly
13
discriminate against those, who similarly situated save for
their lack of power and wealth. But it seems that we have
overlooked both the law and the facts.
What is the law?
Every person accused of a crime is guaranteed the right to
bail except in crimes punishable by reclusion perpetua or
higher, when evidence of guilt is strong. What are the facts?
No single evidence, save for self-serving testimonies, points
to Pres. Estrada as to warrant the conclusion, that there is a
strong probability of guilt.
Notwithstanding his incarceration after all these years,
Pres. Estrada had never exhibited even a tendency to flee
from the charges against him.
He had never been a
dangerous man, who could not be trusted to freely roam the
streets.
In fact, even Cardinal Vidal had vouched for his
recognizance and offered to take him under his custody.
It appears that some officials are apprehensive that
there is a danger that Pres. Estrada will flee the country
once bail is granted to him.
That is an assault in itself, a
slap on his face that will forever leave a scar in his lifetime.
The least thing we could do is to allow him to feel, that he
had not been denigraded to a level lower than an accused.
For at least the accused is accorded utmost Constitutional
privileges.
14
At ngayon nga ay limang taon nang
nakakulong si
Pangulong Estrada, ang pangulo na malinaw na inihalal ng
mahigit 11-milyong Pilipino – kaya dahil dito, sa paggunita
natin ng anibersaryo ng EDSA 2 ay panahon na rin, upang
linawin ang bahaging ito ng ating madilim na kasaysayan.
Mr. President, while I do not wish to intrude into the
manner and wisdom of the Supreme Court in arriving at its
decision, lest I be accused of breaching the sacrosanct
principle of separation of powers, I can only appeal, for the
sake of justice and fairness for Atty. Allan Paguia, to lift his
indefinite suspension from the practice of law and restore to
him his full rights as a member of the bar, after all, he had
served much the heartless and severe penalty taking into
consideration,
the
political
character
of
his
lawyering
services rendered to President Joseph Estrada. And as sure
as justice is merciful as it is exacting, I also urge, Mr.
President, our most respected and honorable colleagues in
the Judiciary to hear the pleas of Pres. Estrada, to consider
his appeal for an opportunity for him to enjoy his right to
provisional liberty, whether by way of recognizance or by
bail.
Thank you.
15